Musk's prediction will only come true if there is a breakthrough in battery technology.
There's certainly enough money chasing the issue, but that doesn't mean anyone will find a breakthrough.
I say Musk is just stirring the pot with wishful thinking and big talk. But I give him the benefit of the doubt that his motive is to rally people toward a better planet. I don't think he is just trying to pump up Tesla.
I don't think it is possible to see a lot "fully electric" car in 20 years if there is no breakthrough in battery - no matter it is fuel cell or any other kind of chemical. 20 years is just a blink if we talk about battery technology.
If anyone visite china, e-bike has replaced most of motorcycles and some bikes.
If it's low speed short range, e-bike rules.
same thing, e-car will rule in china if no speed /range requirement which is already happening in some villages...
To me, the most valid way of looking at battery electrics is to ask yourself this:
Would I consider buying a car in which the gasoline tank holds only 2 gallons of fuel, and it takes 4 to 10 hours to refill the tank?
I'll submit that even the theoretical option of switching out the gas tank, with another tank preloaded with 2 gallons of fuel, does not help matters much. Nor does making that a 4 gallon gas tank!
I'll admit that there are some situations where such dire restrictions are acceptable. But it ain't no 50 percent of cars on the road.
Actually, all depends on where you live. There are articles online that explain this.
Battery electrics, in much of the US, do not reduce CO2 emissions, because the electricity is generated from coal. Now some of that is being replaced by natural gas, so it may help some.
And then there is the problem of the spent batteries.
My take is, switching over to all electric drive trains will help, because it makes the car more efficient. And switching the main power source from ICE to fuel cells, with the H2 extracted on board from a hydrocarbon fuel (rather than storing H2 in tanks), should also reduce C02 emissions by a lot. The process is supposed to be about twice as efficient as the ICE, i.e. around 60 percent vs 30 percent.
So, in my view, you don't pretend to solve the (supposed) problem in one fell swoop. But you can manage it a lot better.
I agree with you. Energy crisis will increase if the dependency on the fossil fuel for generating electricity remains predominant. In the next 15 years time, may be, there could be a breakthrough in the solar or other greener technologies for generating electricity, which could make this easier? If the efficiency of the PV cells are increased to 50%?
Drones are, in essence, flying autonomous vehicles. Pros and cons surrounding drones today might well foreshadow the debate over the development of self-driving cars. In the context of a strongly regulated aviation industry, "self-flying" drones pose a fresh challenge. How safe is it to fly drones in different environments? Should drones be required for visual line of sight – as are piloted airplanes? Join EE Times' Junko Yoshida as she moderates a panel of drone experts.